Lawsuits cost money, mine is no exception. Please Donate.

There is a new schedule which is set as follows: The briefing schedule is stayed pending a decision on my motion to file an oversized brief which I filed on December 1, 2014 the court’s ruling whether to grant the petition for en banc review in Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 is granted.

The optional reply brief is due within 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief.

Please note that my appeal of the final judgment by district court judge S. James Otero is stylized as Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al. His judgment was stylized as Nichols v. Harris. Governor Brown was dismissed with prejudice in the first round. I had to wait until final judgment in the district court before appealing that dismissal. The proper title of my appeal is Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr., et al or Nichols v. Brown in short and will remain so until a final judgment is reached on appeal. Those with a Federal Pacer account can access the appellate docket by clicking here.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 26, 2015 - The en banc petitions in Peruta v. San Diego and Richards v. Prieto were both granted which means my opening brief is due in 14 days. However, I expect that Attorney General Harris will file another motion to stay my case pending a decision in the en banc hearing which will likely be granted.

Filed order (Appellate Commissioner):Appellant’s motion to file sur-reply in opposition to appellee’s motion to stay proceedings is granted. Appellant’s sur-reply and the previously submitted filings concerning the motion to stay proceedings have been considered. Appellees’ opposed motion to stay proceedings pending the court’s ruling whether to grant the petition for en banc review in Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 is granted. Within 90 days after the date of this order or within 14 days after the court rules on the petition for en banc review in Richards, whichever occurs first, appellees shall file an appropriate motion addressing the status of this appeal and requesting a further stay or other relief. Appellant’s motion to file an oversized opening brief is granted in part. Appellant may file an opening brief that does not exceed 18,000 words. The opening brief is due within 14 days after the stay granted in the preceding paragraph (or any subsequent stay) expires. Appellant’s unopposed motion for an extension to file a shortened opening brief is granted. The answering brief is due within 45 days after the stay expires. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. (Pro Mo) [9389344] (MS) [Entered: 01/21/2015 09:54 AM]

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 24, 2015 -It was three months ago today that the final briefs were filed in response to the sua sponte call for an en banc rehearing by an active circuit court judge in the Peruta v. San Diego appeal. Sua sponte calls for an en banc rehearing are very rare. Today marks 111 days since the sua sponte call for a rehearing was made.

For some unexplained and inexplicable reason the 9th Circuit Appellate Commissioner made the timing of my appeal dependent upon the Richards v. Prieto CCW en banc petition. That appeal was disposed of with an unpublished memorandum and, as such, can’t even be cited let alone set a precedent in my appeal.

That was on January 21st when the Richards v. Prieto case was still stayed. On February 2nd, the stay in Richards v. Prieto was lifted. My appeal is stayed until a decision is made whether or not to grant the en banc petition in Richards v. Prieto.

One day before the 21 day deadline, the three judge panel stayed the Richards Appeal on May 21, 2014. Assuming that stay reset the clock for a decision on whether or not to hear the Richards case en banc, it has now been 50 days since the stay in Richards was lifted. If the 9th Circuit were following its own rules then the 21 day deadline couldn’t have been extended beyond an additional 14 days.

Given that more than 35 days have passed, and there was not a sua sponte call for an en banc rehearing of the Richards case, we should have heard by now if the en banc petition had been rejected as a matter of course. The logical inference is that the en banc petition was granted.

But that inference requires that we assume that the 9th Circuit is following its own rules and we should all know better than to do that by now.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 6, 2015 - My Open Carry lawsuit contains a Fourth Amendment challenge. There was an important 4th Amendment case heard in SCOTUS this week very relevant to my lawsuit. The City of Los Angeles has a local ordinance which makes it a crime for hoteliers to refuse to show their registers to the police. No warrant, no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion, no subpoena, nothing. Likewise, California has a statute which “authorizes” police to stop and search your firearm to see if it is loaded (PC 25850(b)). Here is a link to the transcript and oral arguments.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 2, 2015 - Pursuant to the order staying my case on January 21, the stay in my case is automatically lifted and my Opening Brief is due “Within 90 days after the date of this order or within 14 days after the court rules on the petition for en banc review in Richards, whichever occurs first…” The stay in the Richards v. Prieto case was lifted today.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 21, 2015 - Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Appellate Commissioner, Peter J. Shaw, issued the following Order (Note that I am the Appellant. Governor Brown and California Attorney General Harris are the Appellees):

“Docket Text:

Filed order (Appellate Commissioner):Appellant’s motion to file sur-reply in opposition to appellee’s motion to stay proceedings is granted.

Appellant’s sur-reply and the previously submitted filings concerning the motion to stay proceedings have been considered.

Within 90 days after the date of this order or within 14 days after the court rules on the petition for en banc review in Richards, whichever occurs first, appellees shall file an appropriate motion addressing the status of this appeal and requesting a further stay or other relief.

Appellant’s motion to file an oversized opening brief is granted in part.

Appellant may file an opening brief that does not exceed 18,000 words.

The opening brief is due within 14 days after the stay granted in the preceding paragraph (or any subsequent stay) expires.

Appellant’s unopposed motion for an extension to file a shortened opening brief is granted.

The answering brief is due within 45 days after the stay expires.

The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. (Pro Mo) [9389344] (MS)”

Long story short, if the Richards v. Prieto en banc petition were denied today then I would have 14 days to file my new Opening Brief.

Streamlined request by Appellant Charles Nichols to extend time to file the opening brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Charles Nichols opening brief is due 12/02/2014. Appellees Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General answering brief is due 01/02/2015. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [9278766] (DO) [Entered: 10/16/2014 10:38 AM]

Streamlined request [9] by Appellees Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris to extend time to file the brief is not approved because it is unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed. See 9th Cir. R. 32-2.[9362274] (GS) [Entered: 12/24/2014 04:17 PM]

Filed order (Appellate Commissioner):Appellant’s motion to file sur-reply in opposition to appellee’s motion to stay proceedings is granted. Appellant’s sur-reply and the previously submitted filings concerning the motion to stay proceedings have been considered. Appellees’ opposed motion to stay proceedings pending the court’s ruling whether to grant the petition for en banc review in Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 is granted. Within 90 days after the date of this order or within 14 days after the court rules on the petition for en banc review in Richards, whichever occurs first, appellees shall file an appropriate motion addressing the status of this appeal and requesting a further stay or other relief. Appellant’s motion to file an oversized opening brief is granted in part. Appellant may file an opening brief that does not exceed 18,000 words. The opening brief is due within 14 days after the stay granted in the preceding paragraph (or any subsequent stay) expires. Appellant’s unopposed motion for an extension to file a shortened opening brief is granted. The answering brief is due within 45 days after the stay expires. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. (Pro Mo) [9389344] (MS) [Entered: 01/21/2015 09:54 AM]

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 24, 2014 - Today I received an ECF notice which read “Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Answering Brief by Appellees Kamala D. Harris and Edmund G. Brown, Jr.. New requested due date is 01/30/2015.”

The Appellees November 19, 2014 motion to stay my appeal pending Peruta/Richards is still undecided. I filed a motion to submit an oversized opening brief on December 1st. Normally these motions are quickly decided and the court sets a new due date for the Answering brief (adjusting for additional time granted to file an opening brief if the motion to file the opening brief is denied).

The one-time streamlined requests are automatically granted. If granted, and the motion to stay is denied, then the new due date for the Appellees’ Answering Brief is January 30th of 2015 which will become the due date for me to file a Rule 35 petition that my appeal be heard initially en banc. I have already begun work on my Rule 35 petition which, if granted, will allow me to bypass a three judge panel hearing my case and go directly to an en banc court. Procedurally, this makes it easier for me to align my case with the Peruta/Richards en banc rehearing(s) if they are to be reheard en banc and even if they are not reheard en banc and/or my appeal is not aligned, the granting of my soon to be filed Rule 35 Petition will save my appeal a great deal of time.

Update 5:04 PM – The Appellees streamlined request for a 30 day extension was denied because the briefing schedule is stayed pending a decision on my motion to file an oversized brief.

12/24/2014

10

Streamlined request [9] by Appellees Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Kamala D. Harris to extend time to file the brief is not approved because it is unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed. See 9th Cir. R. 32-2.[9362274] (GS) [Entered: 12/24/2014 04:17 PM]

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 15, 2014 - Today is Bill of Rights Day and is also the day I managed to file my motion to file a Sur-Reply in opposition to Defendant-Appellee Harris’ motion to stay as well as the actual Sur-Reply brief which I spent this last week writing. Fortunately, I managed to file them before a stay was issued in my appeal and I marked the motion urgent so we should have a decision on the Attorney General’s motion to stay my appeal before a decision is made on whether or not to rehear the Peruta decision en banc.

Attorney General Harris’ motion to stay is probably the most sanctimonious motion I have ever read. Courts are normally very picky about the wording and format of motions. Attorneys are supposed to cite the rule(s) and authorities under which a stay can be granted and the burden of proving that a stay is warranted lies on the shoulders of the party making the motion to stay the case. Attorney General Harris’ position is that the burden is on me to prove that a stay is NOT warranted. She does not cite any rule or authority in support of her position.

I closed my Sur-Reply brief with the advisory that should the stay be granted it would not aid judicial efficiency because if the stay is granted I will be filing motions to lift the stay and eventually (quickly) file a writ with SCOTUS to order the stay lifted should it be granted.

Unlike the appeal of my preliminary injunction, I’m not having to fight a multi-front war in the district court AND the court of appeals. There is only one battleground now and that is in the 9th Circuit. If Attorney General Harris (and Governor Brown) want to get into a motions war then I am more than happy to oblige them. If some assistant clerk at the court of appeals wants to play god with this appeal as happened with the appeal of my preliminary injunction lst year then I am more than happy to fill the 9th Circuit’s In-Box with motions and appeals and writs related to their procedural decisions. Here is a link to the briefs I filed today -> ECF – Motion and Sur-Reply in Opposition to Stay 14-55873 Documents

You might have noticed that there are no PACER headers at the top of the pages in the briefs. That happens sometimes with my ECF filings. I have no idea why.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 8, 2014 - California Attorney General Harris today filed her response to my opposition to her motion seeking a 90-180 day/indefinite stay of my appeal of the final judgment of the district court. You may recall that the district court cited one line of dicta from the Peruta decision which the district court inferred as a pleading barrier which created an insurmountable obstacle to my Second Amendment claim and dismissed my case with prejudice.

In my opposition to her motion to stay my appeal, a motion in which she falsely claimed that Governor Brown was not a defendant in the Appeal, I reminded the court that inferior courts such as the district court and the appellate courts are forbidden from creating pleading barriers not found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to which the US Supreme Court reminded the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals less than one month ago in Johnson v. City of Shelby. Neither did the Attorney General cite any rule or authority allowing a stay to be issued or justifying a stay this time around. Instead, she “argues” that somehow, in some undefined way, a decision in Peruta v. San Diego or Richards v. Prieto might have some impact on my case.

Likewise, in her response today she cites no rule or authority in which a stay can be issued or in any way makes an argument justifying a stay. Crucially, she does not deny that the sole basis the district court judge gave for denying my Second Amendment challenge was in error. As much as the two judge majority in Peruta v. San Diego would like to preclude plaintiffs from arguing that we have a right to openly carry firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense, they are prohibited from doing so under both US Supreme Court and this Circuit’s own binding precedents.

Also, I received an email from the NRA law firm representing Peruta informing me that they would once again be filing an Amicus Brief asking that my appeal be stayed pending a final resolution of Peruta. The NRA did this in my appeal of my preliminary injunction. After their motion was referred to the merits panel, which was months away from being selected, an assistant clerk granted their request to stay the appeal of my preliminary injunction. Fortunately, I can fight the NRA entering as an Amicus and can fight any stay the Court (or Clerk) might issue since this time around as I am not also having to fight a legal battle in the district court.

I told Peruta’s lawyer that not only do I oppose their entering as an Amicus seeking a stay of my appeal, if they file their brief then they should be prepared for a long legal battle. There are several things I can do and one of those things is to file a motion for summary reversal of the district court decision.

Before that, I will be filing a motion to file a sur-reply in opposition to Harris’ motion for a stay.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 1, 2014 - I have filed my oversized Appellant Opening Brief along with the requisite motion. The deadline for filing was tomorrow but I try to avoid filing at the last minute, particularly electronically given that the first major storm of the season is due to arrive tonight and last through Wednesday morning. I don’t know why but I invariably lose electricity and/or internet access whenever the first moderate to heavy rains hit.

The Court still has not ruled on any of the existing motions and so what happens next is anybody’s guess. Larger oversized briefs have been approved by the 9th Circuit but I think we all know by now that mine is a “special case” where the rules and the laws seem not to apply for some reason.

Streamlined request by Appellant Charles Nichols to extend time to file the opening brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Charles Nichols opening brief is due 12/02/2014. Appellees Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General answering brief is due 01/02/2015. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [9278766] (DO) [Entered: 10/16/2014 10:38 AM]

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 30, 2014 (11:21 pm) - I have just finished my Appellant Opening Brief and Motion to File an Oversized Brief just in time for the December 2nd filing deadline. I will wait until the court is closed tomorrow evening to see if it has made a decision on the Attorney General’s motion to stay my appeal pending Richards/Peruta. If the court has not made a decision by then, I will file my motion and attached brief tomorrow night.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 30, 2014 - It was three years ago today that I filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s ban on openly carrying loaded firearms, a ban which was enacted in 1967 and a ban which the National Rifle Association helped write. After issuing a press release condemning Open Carry this past year, the NRA followed up with a video retraction claiming that the NRA has always been at the forefront of the fight for Open Carry. What the NRA forgot to tell you is that in California the NRA has been at the forefront of the fight AGAINST Open Carry via their Peruta v. San Diego lawsuit in which the NRA attacked Open Carry and supported Gun Free School Zones. The NRA also attacked in court my motion for a preliminary injunction against all three of California’s Open Carry bans.

Pretty much every so called gun-rights group you can think of has either filed a lawsuit arguing in support of bans on Open Carry or filed Amicus briefs in support of those lawsuits. In California those groups are: the National Rifle Association, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, the CalGuns Foundation and the Gun Owners of California/America.

Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be prohibited.

“[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 – Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

“We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 – Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.

“[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282

Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry

http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 29, 2014 - I have today filed my opposition to Defendant-Appellee Harris’ motion to stay proceedings in my appeal “until the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, decides whether to grant a pending petition for en banc review of Richards v. Prieto, Case No. 11-16255.” Or for 90 days now and another 90 days after the first 90 days expires. She was all over the map on what she was asking for. Neither did she cite any rule or authority under which her stay was requested and she certainly didn’t make any argument that a stay is warranted by satisfying the four factors required for a stay. She didn’t even identify the four factors for a stay. If the stay is granted then I’ll take the time to reduce the page count of my opening brief and they I’ll file a writ with SCOTUS to lift the stay.

Tomorrow marks the three year anniversary of my filing my Open Carry lawsuit in the district court. I started raising money and relearning the parts of the law I needed to successfully argue my case six months before that. Once my appeal is fully briefed, I won’t be spending much time updating my website or on Facebook. This lawsuit has cost me a lot of money, it is going to take a lot of work on my part just to break even.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 23, 2014 - I have countered the Defendant’s motion for a 90-180 stay with an extension of time for at most 60 days. We should know within a week or so if it is granted. If not, and assuming that the Defendant’s motion for a stay is not granted prior to my filing an opposition to the stay, my Opening Brief will be filed by December 2nd.

Streamlined request by Appellant Charles Nichols to extend time to file the opening brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Charles Nichols opening brief is due 12/02/2014. Appellees Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General answering brief is due 01/02/2015. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [9278766] (DO) [Entered: 10/16/2014 10:38 AM]

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 19, 2014 - Attorney General Harris filed an OPPOSED motion to stay my appeal for 90-180 days. I will be filing an opposition.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 11, 2014 - This is the Federal docket for my case. You will need a Federal Pacer account in order to access the filings from the docket.

CHARLES NICHOLS,Plaintiff – Appellant,v.EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., in his official capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General, Attorney General in her official capacity as Attorney General of California,Defendants – Appellees.

Streamlined request by Appellant Charles Nichols to extend time to file the opening brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Charles Nichols opening brief is due 12/02/2014. Appellees Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General answering brief is due 01/02/2015. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [9278766] (DO) [Entered: 10/16/2014 10:38 AM]

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 16, 2014 - The deadline for my opening brief is now December 2nd, 2014. Sorry folks but there was an illness in the family I won’t go into which gave me very little free time to work on my opening brief from the beginning of August until last week. I tried to work on the brief as often as I could but with my deadline less than a month away, I filed for a 30 day extension.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 3, 2014 - The deadline for my opening brief is November 3rd, 2014 to which I am entitled to an automatic 30 day extension should I request one. I am now inclined to file for the free 30 day extension. This will shift forward the due date for appellees Brown and Harris to file their answering brief by 30 days. The appellees are also entitled to a free 30 day extension in time to file their answering brief. There are a couple of good reasons for filing the extension. The first of which is we should know that Chovan was denied cert next Monday. Chovan is the case that adopted the Two-Step framework for evaluating Second Amendment cases. If somehow it were granted cert then it becomes vacated and I cannot rely upon it as a binding precedent in my appeal. Secondly, if the en banc petition in Peruta is not decided immediately after SCOTUS makes a decision in Chovan then it stands to reason that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is waiting for me to file my opening brief before proceeding with the Peruta decision. In any event, this is not an appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction. Time is not of the essence. The 9th CCA can sit on my appeal as long as it wishes. Unlike a preliminary injunction appeal, an appeal of final judgment is not entitled to an expedited hearing. You can thank the NRA for torpedoing my preliminary injunction appeal.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 20, 2014 - The deadline for my opening brief is November 3rd, 2014 to which I am entitled to an automatic 30 day extension should I request one. I don’t see myself asking for the 30 day extension. There is a lot of work in writing and preparing the brief, particularly the excerpt of record. I plan on having everything ready for the printer and proofreaders by October 15th. Fortunately, unlike in the district court, I am allowed to electronically file my briefs and excerpts of record (followed by multiple hard copies via overnight mail a week later).

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 26, 2014 - The District of Columbia ban on carrying firearms in public has been struck down as unconstitutional. Details here.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 7, 2014 - There will be few updates between now and the filing of my Opening Brief. There are three cases important to my case which are in various stages of being appealed. In and of themselves they are not crucial but they are extremely helpful for the most part. I will post updates should they have decisions between now and the filing of my opening brief which is due, from the time schedule above, on November 3rd.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 10, 2014 - There will now NOT be a quick, by court standards, restoration of our right to keep and bear arms in California thanks to the NRA. The appeal of the denial of my preliminary injunction has been dismissed as moot because there is now a final entry of judgment in my district court case. According to the court of appeals “Good sense dictates that review of the decision [my appeal of the final district court judgment] on the merits would be more meaningful.”

As you may recall, last year the NRA filed a motion in my Open Carry case asking that the appeal of the denial of my preliminary injunction be stayed until its concealed carry case, Peruta v. San Diego, was decided. An assistant clerk stayed my appeal of my preliminary injunction. Let us not forget that this is the same NRA that just released a 12 minute video wherein it claimed to support Open Carry and has always been the leader in supporting Open Carry.

Appeals of preliminary injunctions are given priority in scheduling and hearing. Thanks to the National Rifle Association we are now going to have to wait at least a couple of more years before there is a decision in the Peruta/Richards en banc appeals followed by a decision by the 9th Circuit in my appeal – Nichols v. Brown.

Filed order (RONALD M. GOULD, MARY H. MURGUIA and PAUL J. WATFORD): On May 1, 2014, the district court entered a final order dismissing the underlying action. Consequently, this preliminary injunction appeal is dismissed as moot. See SEC v. Mount Vernon Mem’l Park, 664 F.2d 1358, 1361 (9th Cir. 1982) (district court’s entry of final judgment renders pending appeal from preliminary injunction moot). Appellant’s appeal from the district court’s final judgment is proceeding in this court as appeal number 14-55873. All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [9126728] (AF)

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 30, 2014 - The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has assigned a case number to my appeal of the final judgment in my district court lawsuit against California’s three Open Carry bans. The case number is 14-55873. Those of you with a Federal PACER account can access the Federal docket by clicking here. As of today, there is only the scheduling entry which reads as follows:

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 28, 2014 - The notice of appeal now shows up on the Federal docket. I am awaiting receipt of my appellate package and assignment of case number from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 27, 2014 - At 10:57 AM PST I filed my Notice of Appeal of Judgment in my Open Carry case filed on November 30, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The appeal is stylized as Charles Nichols v. Edmund G. Brown Jr. et al. I will post the appellate docket number when the 9th CCA assigns one to me. The judgment from the district court is stylized as Nichols v. Harris. This might cause some confusion but it shouldn’t. Simply keep in mind that my appeal is Nichols v. Brown unless the higher courts dismiss Governor Brown from the case for good.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 22, 2014 - 9th CCA PACER has been down for hours. I was unable to check the latest statuses today of about a dozen different cases I am following. I suspect nothing will change until after the upcoming Memorial Day holiday. Monday is a holiday, I will be filing my notice of appeal on Tuesday. The Peruta case presents an interesting challenge to my latest appeal because of the district court decision in my case and the fact that the Peruta decision created a Circuit split with the Chovan decision. Hopefully, Peruta will be vacated well before my appellant opening brief is due.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 17, 2014 - Absent an extension, Attorney General Harris had 14 days to file her application and motion for costs and attorney fees from entry of judgment on May 1st. That deadline has now come and gone. Despite AG Harris threatening several times to seek costs and attorney fees, she has now forfeited her chance. I am waiting until the last week of this month to file my notice of appeal. I’m only going to get this one shot before the court of appeals, I am going to take advantage of every minute available to me to prepare my appeal.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 1, 2014 - As expected, the district court judge rubber-stamped the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Attorney General Harris’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was granted and my Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was denied. As I have said in the past, I expected to lose in district court. I would have preferred that I won but barring that, my hope was that the district court judge would rubber-stamp the Report and Recommendation of the district court judge as it perfectly frames my appeal. I now have 30 days within which to file my appeal. Here is a link to the Order accepting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Here is a link to the Judgment by District Court Judge S. James Otero.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 17, 2014 -The Requests for Ruling AG Harris’ attorney refused to jointly sign that I submitted to the District Court Judge were rejected yesterday by the Magistrate judge even though by the magistrate judge’s own prior orders, the motions are in the hands of District Court Judge Otero. Since the beginning this court has held me to the Federal & Local Rules which hinder my case while at the same time allowing Attorney General Harris to skate over these very same rules. This is just the most recent example of the court refusing to follow its own rules. My declaration still does not show on the court docket.

Regardless, I have sent my requests for ruling to the Chief Judge and will continue to follow the local rules. Which means that if no decision has been reached or if Judge Otero has not given me a date in writing when the decision will be reached then I will once again notify the Chief Judge in writing of Judge Otero’s failure to do so. My next notification to the Chief Judge will be on May 9, 2014.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 14, 2014 -California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed her response to my objection to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. It is barely a page long and inconsequential on procedural grounds.

For two weeks now I have anxiously awaited the AG’s response to my objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (see attached). The Peruta decision put the AG between a rock and a hard-place. The MJ relied on a couple of lines of dicta from Peruta to recommend dismissal of my case with prejudice. AG Harris made no mention of the Peruta decision in today’s response (she did not file an objection to the R&R either).

The AG could hardly argue that the Peruta decision is correct, now could she? Although implicitly she did so by saying in today’s filing that “The Attorney General agrees with the R & R…”

The “two points” Harris raises don’t worry me on procedural grounds, for obvious reasons. Harris never raised my race as an issue regarding standing to bring an equal protection claim against the Black Panther Open Carry ban. The MJ presumed that I was White for the first time in her R&R relying on a document that was already in dispute and to which I filed an objection. I suspect AG Harris’ attorney knew that I am of mixed race which is why she never raised the issue. AG Harris’ attorney said he monitors my Facebook page and postings around the web. I’ve never tried to hide my ancestry. I am in fact of mixed race – White and Native American. And I have the pictures to prove it. Laughing

As to AG Harris’ other point. The “Errata” she filed wasn’t an errata. An errata would be something along the lines of “Line 7 on pg 3 should have read…” Instead, AG Harris late filed an untimely, 26 page second MPA complete with TOC & TOA.

All of this isn’t to say that I do not fully expect that Judge Otero will grant the AG’s MJP and dismiss my case with prejudice. I’m just curious to see how much of the MJ’s R&R he rubber-stamps when he does.

P.S. The declaration of my race the AG refers to was filed concurrently with my Opposition to the R&R on March 31st. It still does not show up on the PACER docket and Judge Otero’s clerk did not respond to my email inquiry as to why this is so given that he is the one responsible for scanning my paper filings and uploading them to PACER.

P.P.S. Neither of my L.R. 83-9 notices filed last Wednesday appear on the PACER docket. I have date/time stamped copies from the intake clerk.

P.P.P.S Last week a district court judge in a concealed carry case out of San Bernardino denied a preliminary injunction citing Heller’s embracement of prohibitions on concealed carry and noting that “Petitions for en banc review are pending in each of these cases [Peruta & Richards].”

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 11, 2014 -In just under 72 hours Attorney General Harris’ optional response to my objection to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge is due to be filed (4:00pm April 14). There is still no record of either my declaration or my L.R. 83-9.2 notices on the Federal Court docket. Judge Otero’s clerk is responsible for scanning and uploading them to PACER. No matter, I have proof of filing and I’ve mailed copies of the L.R. 83-9.2 notices to the Chief Federal Judge for the Central District of California. In the off-chance that I am not penalized for being the only one who follows the rules, a decision will be forthcoming from Judge Otero which is due to be filed by April 30th. If that doesn’t happen, check the April 4th update for what occurs next.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 9, 2014 -I filed the two notices that more than 120 days have come and gone without a decision on the two potentially dispositive motions made by Attorney General Harris and myself back in December. AG Harris’ attorney had refused to sign either notice (we were both required to sign each of the notices) and so the clerk has entered a grammatically incorrect notice of deficiency. Instead of saying that counsel for the defendant had not signed the notices, she wrote “Both” parties have not signed the notices. No matter, as explained in my April 4, 2014 update my next step is to send a copy of each of the two notices to the Chief District Court judge for the Central district of California.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 7, 2014 – Earlier, I had incorrectly noted the date that my motion for Partial Summary Judgment was taken under submission for a decision was on December 3, 2013. It was taken under submission on December 9th, 2013 which means my Local Rule 83-9.2 notice on that motion cannot be filed until this Wednesday at the earliest.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 4, 2014 -Pursuant to Local Rule 83-9.2 counsel for Attorney General Kamala Harris and I are required to file a Joint Request for Ruling after 120 days of passed without a ruling on a motion submitted by any party. AG Harris has refused to comply with the L.R. and so I am filing a Request for Ruling next Monday in which I have also noted that AG Harris’ counsel has refused to join. Here is what happens next:

L.R. 83-9.3 Duty of Court to Respond. Unless the Court makes its decision within 30 days after the filing of a joint request, it shall, within the same time period, advise the parties in writing of the date by which the decision will be made. A copy of such written advice shall be filed in the case and sent to the Chief Judge.L.R. 83-9.4 Follow-Up Duty of Counsel. In the event the Court fails timely to make its decision or to advise the parties of an intended decision date, as required by L.R. 83-9.3, counsel shall then file a joint request with the Chief Judge to establish an intended decision date. A copy of such request shall be filed in the case.L.R. 83-9.5 Date of Intended Decision. Upon receipt of a request under L.R. 83-9.4, the Chief Judge shall, after consultation with the judge to whom the matter is assigned, establish a firm intended decision date by which the Court’s decision shall be made. Such setting of a final intended decision date shall be in writing, shall be filed in the case, and shall be served on the parties.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 2, 2014 -The Federal district court docket now reflects my opposition to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge as being filed. As expected, AG Harris did not file an opposition to the report and recommendation. No record of my declaration as of yet.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 31, 2014 – My opposition to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and my declaration are now filed. Any unlikely opposition by the Attorney General to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge is due tomorrow. I then have 14 days to file my response to the AG’s opposition as does the AG have 14 days to fire her response to my opposition. No matter, this week AG Harris’ attorney and I are both required to file a joint letter with the Chief District Court Judge for the Central District of California informing him that 120 days have come and gone without a decision on the Attorney Genera’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MJP) in violation of the rules of the Central District. Judge Otero then has 30 days to publish his decision on the MJP. Next week, we once again file notice with the Chief District Court Judge to inform him that 120 days have come and gone without a decision in respect to my Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (MPSJ). Judge Otero then has 30 days to publish his decision on my MPSJ.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 28, 2014 - My opposition to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and my declaration are now finished. They will be filed on Monday.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 25, 2014 – I am making better progress on my brief than I thought. Fortunately, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published another decision today which torpedoed the central opposition the district court has had to my case since it denied my motion for a preliminary injunction last year. Barring a last minute computer crash or other emergency, I should be finished well before the April 1 deadline.

The district court has to date held that in my case that unless a Second Amendment law is unconstitutional in all applications (the most extreme interpretation of a facial challenge) then it is to be upheld.

Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that is nonsense in a case arising out of San Francisco. The 9th CCA said today that unless a law is limited to those persons who fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment, the law is vulnerable to a facial challenge even if it has applications to persons who fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.

The same decision said that one can bring both a facial and as-applied challenge in a Second Amendment case. The district court in my case has said to date that I cannot bring both.

The icing on the cake is that in this post Peruta published decision the 9th CCA reaffirmed that:

Of course Peruta, in its “Through the Looking Glass” modern reinterpretation of the 19th Century prohibitions on concealed carry, which it acknowledged meant what they said at the time, to allow for the issuance of concealed carry permits, also said that states can prohibit concealed carry entirely without offending the constitution.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 18, 2014 – The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge to the District Court judge was filed today. Not surprisingly, she recommends that the Attorney General’s motion be granted, my motion be denied and the case closed with prejudice. According to the magistrate judge, the Framers of the Second Amendment did not believe that there was a right to openly carry firearms in public therefore “rational review” applies. And of course she once again concludes that my lawsuit is a purely facial challenge and applies a facial challenge threshold that even the US Supreme Court has never applied. Lots of other silliness and mistakes on her part but should the District Court judge adopt the report and recommendation, it makes a great basis for an appeal.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 11, 2014 - Three weeks from today is the deadline for Judge Otero to decide on Attorney General Harris’ motion to end my ‪#‎OpenCarry‬ lawsuit in her favor. One week later is the deadline for him to decide on my motion to end my lawsuit in my favor.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 3, 2014 -We are still waiting for a decision by the district court judge on the Attorney General’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and my motion for partial summary judgment. A decision on the Attorney General’s motion is due by April 1st. A decision on my motion is due by April 8th. Since the two motions were taken under submission for a decision back in December, I have filed five notices of subsequent decisions in other cases which all support my motion for partial summary judgment. Attorney General Harris has not filed any to support her case because there haven’t been any. The only thing she did was to file frivolous objections to my notices. Assuming the district court judge does not deny both motions, the losing party has 30 days within which to file an appeal.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 18, 2014 – The district court judge assigned to my California ‪#‎OpenCarry‬ lawsuit now has 43 days to rule on the Attorney General’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and 50 days to rule on my motion for partial summary judgment. Whichever side loses will be filing an appeal within 30 days of the judgment.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 16, 2014 – I decided that I will not be filing a notice of the Peruta decision in my Open Carry lawsuit. The Peruta decision does not set a binding precedent. It was very limited in scope.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 14, 2014 - Yesterday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published a decision in the Peruta v. San Diego case which held that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms in public. I will be filing a notice of that decision in my Open Carry lawsuit on Tuesday (the court is closed on Monday).

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 7, 2014 - Today was the halfway point of the time limit (120 days) for the district court judge (Otero) to rule on my motion for partial summary judgment. April 8th is the court’s deadline.

If there is not a decision by April 8th then both AG Harris and I are required to notify the Chief Federal Judge at which point the district court judge will have 30 days within which to file his decision or risk being removed from my case.

The last time this happened, judge Otero filed his decision within 30 days. Yesterday, I spoke with an attorney who will likely be handling the inevitable appeal. He thinks I will win in district court. I am not so optimistic. I have always said my case will be won or lost on appeal and I fully expect to lose in district court. That said, since my motion for partial summary judgment was filed, I have filed five notices of supplemental authority regarding cases which all support granting my motion. Attorney General Harris’ has filed frivolous objections to those notices to which the Court has not replied, thus far.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 5, 2014 - Today I filed my latest Notice of Supplemental Authority regarding US v. Cureton, Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit Nos. 12-1250 & 12-1251 (January 13, 2014). Attorney General Harris will no doubt file yet another frivolous objection within the next couple of weeks. My response (Dkt #158) to her last objection (Dkt #157) now appears on PACER.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 27, 2014 – It has been eight weeks since Attorney General Harris’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was taken under submission and seven seeks since my motion for partial summary judgment was taken under submission for a decision. The district court has 120 days from December 2, 2013 to issue its decision on the AG’s motion and 120 days from December 9, 2013 to issue its decision on my motion.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 16, 2014 - My notice of Supplemental Authority regarding Morris v. Army Corp of Engineers now appears on the court docket. I filed the notice on Monday. This is Thursday.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 13, 2014 - Today, I filed my notice of supplemental authority regarding Morris v. Army Corp of Engineers. The notice of supplemental authority regarding Benson v. Chicago that I filed on Friday is now available on PACER.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 10, 2014 - My latest notice of supplemental authority was filed this afternoon. Not long after I returned home from the Federal Courthouse, I discovered that a district court today in the 9th Circuit issued a preliminary injunction against an Army Corp of Engineers “regulation” prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms (or even unloaded firearms if one also had ammunition in his possession) at its dams and adjacent recreation areas. This is a huge chunk of Federal land. One can also possess loaded firearms within tents at these locations as well. This was a decision from a 9th Circuit court so don’t assume that the preliminary injunction applies outside of the 9th Circuit. The irony of ironies is that the denial of my preliminary injunction was cited by the district court judge as being “persuasive” in issuing the injunction.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 9, 2014 - My briefs which were filed last Monday have finally appeared on the court docket as being filed. Despite the magistrate judge never having filed a notice of deficiency in any of my briefs in over two years of litigation, she still insists on reviewing my briefs before allowing them to be entered into the record. Not so with Attorney General Harris’ briefs.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 6, 2014 - My latest notice of supplemental authority (Patel v. City of Los Angeles) as well as my response to Attorney General Harris’s objection to my previous notice of supplemental authority (US v. Chovan) is now finished. A district court judge today issued a very nice decision in Benson et al v. The City of Chicago et al which, as you may have guessed, I will file another Notice of Supplemental Authority regarding.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 28, 2013 -Well, ain’t that special. AG Harris filed an opposition to my notice of supplemental authority regarding Silvester v. Harris. I now have to write a response to her objection. I was hoping to have some free time until a decision is issued. Oh well.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 18, 2013 – My district court case is fully briefed. Both sides have filed motions for judgments in their favor which, if granted to one or the other, will allow an appeal to proceed. The district court judge has 120 days from December 9th to either grant my motion or move the case on to trial. Similarly, the district court judge has 120 days from December 3rd to either grant the motion by California Attorney General Harris and move the case on to trial. Since it took 30 days for the district court judge to issue a decision on my motion for a preliminary injunction, I do not expect that it will take any longer to rule on my motion for partial summary judgment or the attorney general’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In short, we should have a decision by mid-January.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 16, 2013 - I decided not to file a notice of supplemental authority in US v. Chovan. There was nothing I could say about Chovan that Judge Ishii hadn’t already said in Silvester v. Harris. The district court docket has now been updated below to reflect the last two filings.

Latest Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 9, 2013 - Today I filed a notice of supplemental authority in Silvester v. Harris. Next week I will file a notice of supplemental authority in US v. Chovan.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 9, 2013 – Today, I filed the last set of briefs (hopefully) in the district court. I have a couple of notices of supplemental authority to write before the district court judge hands down its decision in a month or so. I will endeavor to write and file them within the week. There are no facts for a jury to decide in my case but California Attorney General Harris wants to drag my case out as long as possible. She apparently wants a trial and has tried to manufacture disputes about her own evidence! I’m not sure the district court judge wants to waste time on a trial but we should know shortly.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 2, 2013 - Today, California Attorney General Harris filed her opposition to my motion for partial summary judgment. My response is due in seven days at which point the district court case will be fully briefed. After I file my response I will then file a notice of supplemental authority regarding the recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in US v. Chovan. It took 30 days for the district court judge to deny my motion for a preliminary injunction. I suspect it will take about the same amount of time for the district court judge to deny my motion for a partial summary judgment and grant the AG’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The local rules of the court require a decision from the district court within 120 days of my filing my reply to the AG’s response which was filed today. If the district court does not issue a decision at the end of 120 days then both the AG and I are required to inform the Chief Judge for the Central District of California at which point the district court judge will have 30 days to issue a decision or risk having the case reassigned to a different district court judge. After my motion for a partial summary judgment is denied, I will then file a timely appeal which will in turn have to be briefed in the court of appeals. I will also file a motion to lift the stay of my preliminary injunction after I file my notice of supplemental authority regarding US v. Chovan. After that, we wait. There is no limit on how much time it will take for the court of appeals to issue a decision in either of my appeals. This Friday will mark one year to the day that the three concealed carry cases (Richards, Peruta & Baker) where argued and taken under submission for a decision.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 26, 2013 - Today we are one step closer to a decision from the district court in my Open Carry lawsuit which seeks to overturn California’s bans on openly carrying loaded and unloaded firearms. Today I filed my opposition to Attorney General Harris’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The next brief due is from AG Harris. She has to file her opposition to my motion for a partial summary judgment.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 24, 2013 - Sure enough the district court gave the Attorney General an extra 10 days to file her opposition to my motion for partial summary judgment. This isn’t the first time that the court has given the Attorney General extra time to file a brief without the AG even asking. My opposition to the AG’s motion for judgment on the pleadings will be filed this week after which she will have seven days to file a response. Unless the court once again decides to give the AG more time that is. It should come as no surprise that the district court has never given me extra time. Once, the court even filed an order on a weekend giving me less than the minimum “required” time to file my brief. Simply the American justice system at work folks.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 15, 2013 - My Motion for Partial Summary Judgment which was filed last Friday finally showed up on the court docket a week later today. Unlike the Attorney General’s court filings, mine are reviewed by the Magistrate Judge and the Intake Clerk for technical deficiencies before the filings are entered into the record. My Partial Motion for Summary Judgment was composed of seven briefs in all. I also predict that the court will also give the Attorney General additional time to file her response to my motion, just as it has done before, whereas I have never been given additional time and have been given less that the required time to file my objections to the Attorney General’s briefs. This is of course our Federal Court system at work which, like our California Court system, bends over for the government.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry –November 10, 2013 - My Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was filed on Friday the 8th. The due date was next Wednesday the 13th but with Monday being a holiday and roughly 300 pages to file, I didn’t want to risk waiting to the last moment. The lawyer for the Attorney General has said he is going to file a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which in my view is kind of silly, he should have opted to file a Motion for Summary Judgment but now it is too late. If I were him I wouldn’t file anything at all, I would let Judge Otero carry his water for him. Regardless, I hope he files his motion anyway. The time he wastes filing useless motions in my case is time he doesn’t have to do evil in other cases. Everyone should expect for Judge Otero to deny my motion and close my case. We can only hope he does so sooner than later. I wanted my case to be on appeal last Summer and here we are a year latter in the Fall. Once the Attorney General files her opposition to my motion, Judge Otero theoretically has 120 days to issue his decision. After 120 days without a decision, both the Attorney General and I are required to write a letter to the Chief Judge for the Central District of California requesting a decision. If after 30 days there is still no decision then, theoretically, the case is supposed to be assigned to another judge. In short, now we wait and see what happens next.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 29, 2013 – A quick reminder that the closing briefs in my district court lawsuit known as Rule 56 motions are due on November 13, 2013. I am 3/4 finished with my motion for partial summary judgment. The Attorney General will be filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The tentative court date for my motion will be December 30th but given that this judge rarely holds oral arguments and has never held an oral argument in my case, I don’t expect there will be any.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 15, 2013 - The appeal of the denial of my preliminary injunction against California’s Open Carry bans was stayed pending a decision in Richards/Peruta/Baker. My district court case continues. I am working on my district court motion for summary judgment which is due in less than a month. After it is filed, I will file a motion to lift the stay of my appeal.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 2, 2013 - I had to refile my Reply Brief along with a motion today. Apparently, someone at the Clerk’s office didn’t notice that I filed my Opening Brief using the 9th Circuit “form brief” which relieved me from having to comply with a myriad of 9th Circuit rules pertaining to how one is supposed to write a brief, right down to page margins and use of fonts. Therefore the Clerk rejected my Reply Brief saying it was limited to 20 pages and I would have to file a motion along with my brief for it to be oversized. I trimmed my brief to 27 pages, which is less that the briefs filed in Peruta, Richards and McKay and filed it along with the motion to file an oversize brief. It took the Clerk’s office two weeks to file the notice that my brief was too long after receiving my original Reply Brief. I don’t expect that they will process my latest Reply Brief any faster. Nor would it surprise me for them to make up some new reason to reject my brief.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 26, 2013 – My opposition to the NRA/CRPA motion to stay my Open Carry appeal is now on-line at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Docket. My Reply Brief should be online by next Monday. My Open Carry appeal will now be assigned to a three judge panel who will decide the case and who will decide whether or not there will be oral arguments and whether or not my appeal will be stayed and whether or not the NRA/CRPA will be allowed to participate in oral arguments.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 23, 2013 – A week after I filed an opposition to the NRA/CRPA motion to stay my appeal and to enter my case as an Amicus, Attorney General Harris today filed an opposition as well. Given that both parties in the appeal now object, and the NRA/CRPA did not give a single reason why they should be allowed to enter into the appeal, it is doubtful the NRA/CRPA motion will be granted.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 23, 2013 - The appeal of the denial of my preliminary injunction is now fully briefed. The appeal will now be assigned to a three judge panel who will decide whether or not to hear oral arguments in the case, take it under submission for a decision, kick it back to the district court or affirm the judgment of the district court in denying the preliminary injunction.

Update – September 16, 2013 - The California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) is the official state association of the National Rifle Association. CRPA filed a motion last week asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals not to hear my Open Carry lawsuit until the 9th Circuit has issued its decisions in their two failed concealed carry lawsuits. Only the Kool-Aid drinkers still think any of the concealed carry lawsuits pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is going to win. The one Second Amendment lawsuit which has the best chance of winning is my Open Carry lawsuit. All nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices in the Heller decision from 2008 said states can prohibit concealed carry. The Heller decision clearly states that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution. So why does the NRA/CRPA/SAF/Calguns continue to file lawsuits they know they are going to lose? Could it be because they want your money?

Latest Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 12, 2013 – The National Rifle Association through it’s state organization the California Rifle and Pistol Association filed a brief asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the appeal of my Open Carry lawsuit.

Update – September 4, 2013 – I have updated the appellate docket (see below). The Answering Brief by Attorney General Harris is due by 11:59 pm tonight. California Attorney General Harris has filed her Appellate Answering Brief. I have 14 days to file my Reply Brief.

Update – August 8, 2013 – My opening brief now shows up on the Court of Appeals Docket. A local paper, the Daily Breeze, published an article full of errors saying that I had “dropped” by lawsuit against the City of Redondo Beach. I have not dropped my lawsuit against the City of Redondo Beach. I was unable to obtain a stay of the district court proceeding pending the appeal of my preliminary injunction against California’s Open Carry bans so I voluntarily dismissed the Redondo Beach defendants without prejudice which means I can refile my lawsuit against the City of Redondo Beach whenever I choose and there is nothing they can do to prevent that from happening. The lawsuit against California’s Open Carry bans is not affected, it continues.

Update – August 2, 2013 – My opening brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is due on August 7th. The Attorney General for California has until September 4th to file her response after which I will then have 14 days to file my reply to her response. After that, it is up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether or not there is a right to openly carry a loaded or unloaded firearm in areas of the state where licensed hunters are exempt from the bans, or even on your own private residential property. The court of appeals denied my motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the appeal.

Update – July 30, 2013 – My motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the appeal of my preliminary injunction against California’s Open Carry bans was filed on Monday. My opening brief to my appeal is due on August 7, 2013.

Update – July 8, 2013 - I have today filed a notice of appeal of the denial of my motion for a preliminary injunction against California’s Open Carry bans with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. We also dodged a bullet from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals this morning.

The concealed carry lawsuit, Mehl v. Blanas, was dismissed in an unpublished (non-binding) decision this morning on mostly procedural grounds but also because the lawsuit did not challenge the constitutionality of California’s concealed carry laws.

Update July 3, 2013 – Today’s denial of my motion for a preliminary injunction was eleven pages long. The short version is the District Court said that the Supreme Court comments about Open Carry being the right guaranteed by the Constitution weren’t really what the US Supreme Court meant to say. Instead, the judge concluded that the Supreme Court meant to say that states can ban the possession of firearms in public, loaded or unloaded, concealed or openly carried.

I will be filing a notice of appeal this month.

Update July 3, 2013 – There is still no decision on the three California concealed carry lawsuits which were argued before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 6th and 10th of last year. No post-Heller 2nd Amendment lawsuit has taken this long to decide after oral arguments. The Young v. Hawaii appeal is fully briefed and is awaiting scheduling for oral arguments. There are 90 days remaining for the district court judge to issue his decision in my motion for a preliminary injunction against California’s Open Carry bans.

It is beginning to look more and more likely that the 9th Circuit is going to wait until Young v. Hawaii and my inevitable preliminary injunction appeal is heard before issuing a decision.

Update June 20, 2013 – We are still waiting for a decision on my motion for a preliminary injunction against California’s Open Carry bans (both loaded and unloaded) and the concealed carry decisions from the 3rd and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Update June 13, 2013 – The Federal magistrate judge just posted a “scheduling order” (deadlines, etc) in my Open Carry lawsuit which strongly suggests that the motion to dismiss by the City of Redondo Beach will either be denied or granted with prejudice. Either way, my lawsuit against the state statutes banning Open Carry continues. The deadlines in the scheduling order are much sooner than I expected. The deadline for the motion for “Summary Judgment” (basically the conclusion of the lawsuit before the district court) is November 13th of this year. All discovery must be completed on or before October 31st. “The deadline for amending pleadings and/or adding parties is June 28, 2013. Each party shall file and serve a Status Report on or before August 12, 2013.”

Update June 3, 2013 – My motion for a Preliminary Injunction against California’s Open Carry bans (both loaded and unloaded) is fully briefed and in the hands of the Federal District Court judge assigned to my case. I expect that we will have a decision this month.

Update May 28, 2013 – The California Attorney General refiled her opposition to my motion for a preliminary injunction against California’s Open Carry bans. I have until June 3rd to file my response. After that, it is in the hands of the Federal District Court judge.

Update May 17, 2013 – The Attorney General filed an opposition to my motion for a Preliminary Injunction that was too long so the judge tossed it out. She has until May 28 to file a new opposition, I have until June 3 to file my response to her new opposition.

Update May 8, 2013 – The motion for a Preliminary Injunction against California’s ban on openly carrying firearms (both loaded and unloaded) has been filed. The Attorney General filed her 201 page opposition. I have filed my response to her opposition. I have a couple more filings to make against the City of Redondo Beach and depending on how my criminal trial goes next week, I will be filing a motion for an expedited hearing/decision. After that, we are headed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

April 20, 2013 – On March 3, 2013 Federal District Court Judge S. James Otero denied the motion to dismiss my lawsuit made by California Attorney General Harris saying that unless she promises not to enforce California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public, she cannot be dismissed from the lawsuit. On March 29, 2013 I filed a motion for a Preliminary Injunction against the 1967 ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm as well as the two recently enacted bans on openly carrying an unloaded firearm. Attorney General Harris has until May 2nd to file her opposition to my motion for a Preliminary Injunction, I will then have seven days to file my response to her opposition. After my response is filed, Judge Otero has 120 days to publish his decision on my motion. Given the nature of my lawsuit, I suspect we shall have a decision within days of my filing my reply to Harris’s opposition. In short, we should be off to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in June.

Update April 19, 2013 – Hearings on motions for Preliminary Injunctions are rare in this district so it came as no surprise that the magistrate judge took it upon herself to cancel the oral arguments. This gives me the opening to file a motion for an expedited ruling on the Preliminary Injunction which, may in turn, result in the oral arguments being put back on the calendar. If the motion for an expedited ruling is denied, we will have to wait 120 days for the decision from the District Court judge. Net lawyers take note that the magistrate judge referenced Local Rule 7-15 “The Court may dispense with oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is required by statute, the F.R.Civ.P. or these Local Rules.”

Update April 18, 2013 – Attorney General Harris has been given four extra days to reply to my Motion for a Preliminary Injunction against California’s Open Carry bans. I, on the other hand, have not been given any extra time to reply to her response. This isn’t the first time she has been given extra time, by my count, it is the third time. Her reply is due on May 2nd, my response to her reply is due seven days after she files her response.

Update April 17, 2013 – Attorney General Harris filed her Answer to my Amended Complaint. Significantly, she admits to enforcing the challenged statutes. The City of Redondo Beach has again filed a Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. Their last motion to dismiss with prejudice was denied. I am writing a response to their motion which is due in 14 days. The hearing on my motion for a Preliminary Injunction is still scheduled for May 20th.

April 10, 2013 – Today my motion for a Preliminary Injunction against California’s Open Carry bans (both loaded and unloaded) was filed. The tentative hearing date is May 20th in Los Angeles.

Update – April 2, 2013I have filed my amended complaint. In addition to challenging the 1967 ban on Loaded Open Carry and the California laws which restrict licenses to openly carry loaded handguns to counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people, I have amended my complaint to challenge the two recently enacted bans on openly carrying unloaded firearms in public as well. A motion for a preliminary injunction will soon follow.

Update – March 5, 2013The Federal judge assigned to my case just denied the motion to dismiss made by the California Attorney General. We now have a green light to proceed against California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public as well as the California law which restricts licenses to openly carry a loaded handgun in public to counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people.

The Federal judge assigned to my case just denied the motion to dismiss made by the California Attorney General. We now have a green light to proceed against California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public as well as the California law which restricts licenses to openly carry a loaded handgun in public to counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people. The judge also denied the motion to dismiss the damages claim against the City of Redondo Beach. My amended complaint is due on April 2, 2013.

What’s Next?My plan is to file a motion for a preliminary injunction at around the same time. If the judge decides to hold a hearing on the motion, the hearing will take place a month later. If not, the judge will have 120-150 days to issue a decision on the preliminary injunction.

Update – February 28, 2013

My Federal lawsuit seeks an injunction against California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public. If successful, it will render the recently enacted bans on openly carrying unloaded firearms irrelevant.

We are waiting for the decision from the Federal District Court Judge, S. James Otero, on the motions to dismiss made by the Attorney General and Redondo Beach Defendants filed late last June. The decision by the District Court judge was due in November. Instead, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending to the District Court judge that my lawsuit proceed against the Attorney General and to stay my case against the City of Redondo Beach, pursuant to the Younger Abstention, pending the resolution of my criminal case. The magistrate judge is perhaps unaware that the 9th Circuit has a very high hurdle when it comes to the Younger Abstention.

Attorney General Harris was none to pleased with the report recommending to the district court judge that my Open Carry lawsuit be allowed to proceed against her. She filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation by the magistrate judge. I filed my response to her objection on 12/17/2012. On 1/11/2013 I filed notices of Supplemental Authority in regards to the 7th Circuit Decision out of Illinois (Moore/Sheppard v. Madigan) and a Second Amendment state court decision right here in California. I also filed a notice of related case (McKay v. Hutchens). Today, I filed another Notice of Supplemental Authority in Friday’s 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision Peterson v. Martinez which affirmed the Open Carry dicta in Heller. That makes five Circuit Courts of Appeals which have affirmed that there is no right to carry a concealed handgun in public as per the Heller decision which stated that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the US Constitution and that concealed carry can be prohibited.

What next?

A Libertarian supporter of my lawsuit is going through his Rolodex trying to find a lawyer to take on the case. As you are no doubt aware, all of the so called gun-rights groups oppose Open Carry. My Open Carry lawsuit is no exception. This case will ultimately be won or lost on appeal. If we can raise the funds for an attorney then there is a very good chance we could have a decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals late this Summer.

I can file a motion for a Preliminary Injunction at any time. The hearing before the District Court judge would take place a month later. An appeal of the denial of a Preliminary Injunction is given a high priority in the 9th Circuit. I’ve decided to file my motion for a Preliminary Injunction in March.

Update – January 30, 2013 - I would like to thank Republican candidate for the 66th Assembly District and Torrance businessman Craig Huey for joining me in our legal fight to overturn California’s 1967 ban on carrying a loaded firearm in public (and the City of Redondo Beach citywide ban on weapons possession). I have known Craig Huey for over two years, he has always been an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment.

Federal District Court Dockets

Those with a PACER account can click on the numbered links to view the filing.

This docket is the appeal of the final judgment by district court judge S. James Otero

Streamlined request by Appellant Charles Nichols to extend time to file the opening brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Charles Nichols opening brief is due 12/02/2014. Appellees Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General answering brief is due 01/02/2015. The optional reply brief is due within 14 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [9278766] (DO) [Entered: 10/16/2014 10:38 AM]

Filed clerk order: The Court has reviewed the supplemental excerpts of record [17] submitted by Kamala D. Harris. The excerpts are ordered filed. The court has received the paper copies. [8780163] (WP)

Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MF): This is a preliminary injunction appeal. The September 11, 2013 motion of proposed amicus curiae, California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation, for leave to file an amicus brief, and appellees’ September 23, 2013 response, are referred to the panel assigned to decide the merits of this appeal. See 9th Cir. Gen. Ord., App. A (30). Principal briefing is complete. [8797039] (AF)

Filed order (RONALD M. GOULD, MARY H. MURGUIA and PAUL J. WATFORD): On May 1, 2014, the district court entered a final order dismissing the underlying action. Consequently, this preliminary injunction appeal is dismissed as moot. See SEC v. Mount Vernon Mem’l Park, 664 F.2d 1358, 1361 (9th Cir. 1982) (district court’s entry of final judgment renders pending appeal from preliminary injunction moot). Appellant’s appeal from the district court’s final judgment is proceeding in this court as appeal number 14-55873. All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [9126728] (AF)